A judge in Colombia's Constitutional Court says President Alvaro Uribe's implementation of a "social emergency" to reform the country's ailing health care system was unconstitutional.
According to Judge Jorge Ivan Palacio, Uribe's reasons for declaring a state of "social emergency" are not strong enough to justify the declaration, which would allow him to make decrees to reform the healthcare system without a vote in Congress.
Palacio explained that the biggest fault of Uribe's emergency declaration is that the crumbling healthcare system in Colombia was not an unforeseen event, meaning Uribe should have resorted to the traditional legislative channel, the Congress, in order to pass healthcare reforms.
In addition, the judge found that the reforms Uribe seeks to implement will not solve the underlying problem of the health care system in Colombia.
Uribe's proposed healthcare reforms have caused heated debate across Colombia, with many of the country's medical workers arguing that the executive orders should not pass because they are a violation of patients' rights, and others questioning the legitimacy of the proposed emergency reforms.
Uribe, who was aware about the possibility that the Constitutional Court may throw out his emergency reforms, announced in early March that he would hammer out an agreement with Congress to pass his proposed healthcare reforms.
As yet, no such agreement has been made.
Uribe also said that the reforms will be one of his administration's top priorities until July 20, when he leaves office.
gringomedellin
said:
 |
... "In addition, the court found that the reforms Uribe seeks to implement will not solve the underlying problem of the health care system in Colombia." So now the Court is a healthcare expert? Court statements like this undermine Democracy it is not the courts role to set policy or to legislate , the Constitutional Court role is to protect the Constitution, by adding the above wording into thier decision thay have overstepped their role thus violating the very document they are charged to defend. I have to wonder where are those that have been blasting Uribe for the past 8 years , why are they so silent now....... |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... @ gringomedellin Court statements like this strengthen democracy. Approving laws is Congress' role. Whenever a president, despite the constitution, bypasses Congress, he must receive the go-ahead of the Constitutional Court. The Court has the right to argue the President should've let Congress decide. They are the representatives of the people in a democracy.and the ones who approve laws and measures. Without the court's intervention possibility, Congress could be bypassed at random and you're in an autocracy. |
gringomedellin
said:
|
... @ Adriaan I do not disagree with the court throwing them out.I disagree twith the statement , " that the reforms Uribe seeks to implement will not solve the underlying problem of the health care system in Colombia." that is more a political/policy statement then wether the action of the President are in line with the Constitution, it is not within the courts charge to decided such matters, it is up to Congress and the President to make such decisions. to me the court by adding such wording has over stepped it's Constitutional role in Colombia . less undermines democracy. people have blasted Uribe for walking all over democracy yet they sit silent when the court does so. I guess it does fit into their political agendas to hold the court to the same standards....... |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ gringomedellin, although I agree with what you said about applying the same standards to the court, I don't know if the court overstepped its responsibilities. It just provided arguments about the necessity of a social emergency, don't you think? |
gringomedellin
said:
|
... @Adriaan the statement I have issue ( it is just the one part that I have quoted)with is more of a political statement than an arguement for the need of reform, I think the Court is correct it was not a sudden crisis but one that resulted from non action by the Government when they were first aware that a fiscal crisis on the horizen, thus his emergency actions were illegal. That is all the Court needed to say but adding they statement "that the reforms Uribe seeked to put in place would not solve the underlying problem" was a cheap political attack by the Court on the President, thus overstepping their role under the Constitution. it is the role of the President to set policy and make request of Congress it is role of Congress role to legislate, it is not the Courts role to govern or to legislate. |
